Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 621 - AT - Central ExciseConfiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Seizure of branded, packed automobile parts - appellants were buying various auto parts from different places, affixed their brand and MRP, after packing these parts and thereafter sold in the market - neither registered with the Department nor were discharging Central Excise duty on these items. Held that:- the admitted facts of the case are that the appellants are liable for Central Excise duty on the repacked auto components cleared by them. Goods seized by the officers were of such nature in packed condition with MRP and are as such liable for Central Excise duty. This is not being contested. Regarding raw materials valued, I find that the provisions of Rule 25 will not apply. There is no reference to the in process material or raw material in the said provision. As held by the Tribunal in Anchal Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat – I [2007 (10) TMI 532 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] the seizure and confiscation of such goods are not sustainable. Quantum of fine and penalty - Immediately on being pointed out by the Department, they have taken registration and discharged duty liability on clearance of these goods - not fully aware of the application of provisions of deemed manufacture for their products - Held that:- the seizure and confiscation of raw materials are held to the untenable and also considering the fact of overall duty liability, the redemption fine imposed can be reduced to ₹ 10 lakhs and the penalty accordingly may be reduced to ₹ 5 lakhs in the facts and circumstance of the case. Cenvat credit - inputs - Held that:- this issue has not been the subject matter or proceedings before the Original Authority. Based on the plea made by the appellant, the Appellate Authority gave a finding regarding inadmissibility of such credit as the appellants were not registered with the Department at the time of detection of the case. I find that the Tribunal has held that credit may be available even in case of unregistered unit – Well Known Polyesters Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi [2011 (1) TMI 664 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. The entitlement of appellant for the credit will be subject to verification of documents and the applicable provisions of law. - Appeal disposed of
|